(01-18-2010 11:01 AM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  

(01-18-2010 10:43 AM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  

(01-18-2010 10:38 AM)Buc Island Wrote:  

(01-16-2010 10:32 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  Pitt, the mistake I made was ever getting into a discussion with you. You always regress to attacking the person disagreeing with you as "stupid" whenever you don't like what is being said. You have made plenty of statements on this board that don't make a lot of sense. I mentioned above where you meshed my statement and GoBucsGo statement into one, yet I didn't call you stupid. For me, it's about what you write, not who you are or your intelligence level. You attack the person first and foremost. That's fine, that's your style.

Anyway, the gist of what I've said is if you look at the performance of our programs under Dave Mullins, the dept. has not been "crippled" as you claimed. You have given a plethora of reasons why the dept. has fallen away, none of which were based on team's performance. I stand by my claim.

You claimed that having football and being in a conference with football would increase the exposure for our dept. more than is possible without football. I stated, and maintain, that for mid-majors, winning basketball conference championships (no matter the conference) and getting to the NCAA tourney is the best way for national exposure. I stand by that as well. All the rest of this is off-topic from my two main points.

Pitt, you will in no way ever state that Mullins, Stanton, or ETSU athletics has done anything positive because of a personal vendetta because of an issue with credentials that matters only to you. I understand that and should have realized there would be no sense in actually discussing anything the athletic dept. does, because you will never look at it objectively.

I'm done with this, as I should have been a long time ago.

Please list the the positive things that Stanton/Mullins have accomplished for ETSU athletics.

Off hand, I'd say adding a new sport, the building of two new athletics facilities (the first since 1978) and the plethora of championships that have been won under Mullins' watch have all been positives. Increased scholarships for all sports plus bringing up the level of the women's sports to an equitable place have been positives as well.

*** Pardon me for interjecting, but we've *LOST* the varsity tennis courts; we've *LOST* the football team; we've *LOST* the track; we've *LOST* Mooney field (the baseball facility); we've even *LOST* quality indoor tennis courts due to the botched resurfacing; and that's not counting that we've *LOST* the rifle team, men's volleyball, and gymnastics (although those went away earlier). And you have the gall to say we have two new facilities........

And as others have correctly noted, the championships are less worthy due to lesser competition.

Most importantly, paulie's lack of understanding of what his football decision would cause, his lack of vision, his disingenuous claims about fundraising for football (the program no one knew about), and his absurd 'vote' on football, have made the university *LOSE* credibility and believability.

I was not asked about the negatives, I was asked to list anything positive under Mullins. I did. We did build two new facilities. Ground will be broken on a brand new baseball stadium this year. So yes, a baseball stadium was lost. It is however going to be replaced by a shiny new one. So we get a net gain of two brand new stadiums, used by three programs, instead of keeping the old baseball stadium that was used by one program. I consider that progress. (In the meantime, the baseball team has not been homeless. I'm sure if you ask Coach Skole, he's fine with playing at Cardinal Park for a few years in trade for a brand new stadium)

The next facilities to be build will be track and tennis from what I've heard. So after a 30 year spell of no new facilities we will have added 5 under Mullins, if they all come to fruition. I do not see that as a loss for the athletic dept.

As for Stanton, I've never been a fan or said he does things right.

All I'm saying is that there have been negatives in the athletics dept. under Mullins, but to be all gloom and doom all the time is not true in my opinion.

If you look at the "new facilities," however, the way they have been built and the REASONS they have been built, and the ORDER in which they have been built, cannot be described as a positive.

(01-18-2010 11:01 AM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  

(01-18-2010 10:43 AM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  

(01-18-2010 10:38 AM)Buc Island Wrote:  

(01-16-2010 10:32 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  Pitt, the mistake I made was ever getting into a discussion with you. You always regress to attacking the person disagreeing with you as "stupid" whenever you don't like what is being said. You have made plenty of statements on this board that don't make a lot of sense. I mentioned above where you meshed my statement and GoBucsGo statement into one, yet I didn't call you stupid. For me, it's about what you write, not who you are or your intelligence level. You attack the person first and foremost. That's fine, that's your style.

Anyway, the gist of what I've said is if you look at the performance of our programs under Dave Mullins, the dept. has not been "crippled" as you claimed. You have given a plethora of reasons why the dept. has fallen away, none of which were based on team's performance. I stand by my claim.

You claimed that having football and being in a conference with football would increase the exposure for our dept. more than is possible without football. I stated, and maintain, that for mid-majors, winning basketball conference championships (no matter the conference) and getting to the NCAA tourney is the best way for national exposure. I stand by that as well. All the rest of this is off-topic from my two main points.

Pitt, you will in no way ever state that Mullins, Stanton, or ETSU athletics has done anything positive because of a personal vendetta because of an issue with credentials that matters only to you. I understand that and should have realized there would be no sense in actually discussing anything the athletic dept. does, because you will never look at it objectively.

I'm done with this, as I should have been a long time ago.

Please list the the positive things that Stanton/Mullins have accomplished for ETSU athletics.

Off hand, I'd say adding a new sport, the building of two new athletics facilities (the first since 1978) and the plethora of championships that have been won under Mullins' watch have all been positives. Increased scholarships for all sports plus bringing up the level of the women's sports to an equitable place have been positives as well.

And as others have correctly noted, the championships are less worthy due to lesser competition.

I think this is not very true, again this is all based on opinion. I did do some googling the other day to look at how respected the ASun vs. SoCon are nationally, as judged by the seeding of the basketball tourney champ in men's basketball. It's interesting.

ASun Champ SoCon Champ
2009 16 16
2008 15 10 (Davidson with Curry)
2007 15 13 (Ditto)
2006 15 15 (Ditto)
2005 15 15
2004 14 13 (ETSU)
2003 14 15 (ETSU)
2002 15 13
2001 11 16
2000 13 14
1999 14 8
1998 14 14
1997 12 14
1996 16 16
1995 16 15


You'll see that in the past 15 years the ASun champ has been a 16 seed three times, the SoCon four times. It's not the conference holding us back. It's our own performance. (Last year for instance we played a weak out of conference schedule and did not dominate our own conference) In looking at the numbers, the way to get a higher seed out of either conference is more about sustained winning than simply conference affiliation. Davidson went to 3 straight tourneys and started as a 16 the first year and were a 10 the third year. Look at our back to back years - 15 to 13 seed. The 8 seed in 1999 for the SoCon was CofC in their first year of membership after winning two consecutive ASun titles where they were a 12 and a 14 seed.

All I'm saying is the quality of competition argument is so slight, it's not worth noting because nationwide we're not viewed that much differently. It's all about winning conference championships in the conference you are in and the more often you do THAT the more respect you get as a mid-major.

(01-18-2010 12:20 PM)PittsburghBucs Wrote:  Poster's post is great.

To say that we've added two sports is not true. We've traded football for women's soccer and men's soccer, and this is not a good deal.

The golf facility was built before Mullins was the AD, so for all his excuse making that he screwed up the soccer stadium because it was the first new facility since 1978 and he didn't know what he was doing (THIS IS AN EXCUSE?) is not valid.

The facilities have been built with great delays and in many ways in reverse order of what was needed. THE AREA NEEDS A NEW ARENA, PERIOD, AND THAT NEEDS TO COME FIRST!

Think about this- wouldn't a facility that had public use- that nearly everyone in the area would use at some point- make more sense than a softball field that hardly anyone will ever use.

Wouldn't that create the momentum and excitement to raise more money, and therefore with a new arena, the idea that ETSU could compete on a larger scale and in a larger conference could take hold- AND THEN a softball field could be built with the money that would come fundraising with such momentum?

By the way, the word "plethora" means an excess. I know of no athletic program that thinks they have an "excess" of championships.

I also think that perhaps every championship won in the Atlantic Sun could be attributed to a lack of competition. Forgive me if I do not think this is progress.

This is one area where we definitely disagree. I don't think a multi-use arena for the city's purposes should be the athletic dept.'s number one priority. That may very well need to be the city of Johnson City's number one priority, but hosting concerts in town is not going to grow the athletic dept.

I think these other facilities were rightly built first. The Dome is usable, it serves it's purpose. It's not ideal, but building a new arena would cost upwards of 50 million dollars and I would guess would stall the ability of building these other facilities by at least 10-15 years. We did not have a softball or soccer stadium. Impeding the ability of several programs ability to succeed by putting off any facility projects to build a new basketball arena would be poor leadership, IMHO.

I think we all know there's not a *tremendous* amount of difference, and I won't take the time to analyze this in depth. But...........

1) ETSU's addition to the ASun has strengthened it; there is no doubt about that, thus there is that statistical bias introduced.
2) The ASun has not had a team seeded above 14 since 2001.
3) We, and the rest of the country, know that Davey's 10 seed last year was WAY too low, just like ours was for several of our NCAA appearances.
4) UTC's seeding last year was poor because they just happened to win the tournament with a record worthy of a 16 seed. Another statistical bias there.
5) We've discussed those teams in the past on this board who've been below the 300 RPI level. The weighting of teams from the ASun has historically (since ETSU has been in the ASun) been MUCH heavier than for SoCon teams. That also is indisputable. Which of course hurts our SOS - a big factor in seeding. We've been in the predicament in past years of winning 4 or 5 ASun games in a row........and see our RPI actually drop.
6) You're the one who brought up championships. Your list is only basketball. I've already refuted your earlier (I think it was you - sorry if I'm mistaken) post about track. No way is a championship in track & field as prestigious in the ASun. Not to mention our "glory" years in cross-country were in the SoCon, and somewhat also in the OVC before that.


I could go on, but I'll leave it at that. There is some subjectivity in weighting these things. It's true that the average fan in most areas of the country doesn't know who's in the SoCon, Big South, or the ASun -- or even C-USA or the Atlantic 10 for that matter. But those who are on the seeding committee for the NCAA tournament *do* know these things. We are being hurt by this conference in basketball. Maybe not to a gigantic degree, but it's worth about 1.5 to 2 seeding places in the NCAA. Which is a big deal.
I mean, look at the close losses we've had. Except for the AZ game, and the Ga. Tech game (with 4 future NBA players, if I remember correctly - at least 3), it's been close loss after close loss. Although each game is it's own special case, if you have 1.5 to 2 higher seeding in those games, ETSU could well have won 1 or 2 more. And then who knows after that first game. As Davey has proven. As UTC has proven......

(01-18-2010 01:05 PM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  I think we all know there's not a *tremendous* amount of difference, and I won't take the time to analyze this in depth. But...........

1) ETSU's addition to the ASun has strengthened it; there is no doubt about that, thus there is that statistical bias introduced.

The ASun seeding has not really improved since we joined the conference, so I don't think you could say that our addition pushed the data upward.

2) The ASun has not had a team seeded above 14 since 2001.

The SoCon has had a couple teams seeded high. Davidson was an anomaly and a far better team than is usually representative of the SoCon.

3) We, and the rest of the country, know that Davey's 10 seed last year was WAY too low, just like ours was for several of our NCAA appearances.

Hmmm, this sounds to me like you are saying that both ETSU's and Davidson's teams were better than their seeding. Let's see these are SoCon champs right? So what you're telling me is that the committee, who knows the quality of the conferences, did not deem the SoCon champs worthy of the seed that you say they truly deserved? Sounds to me like you're saying that winning the SoCon doesn't get the respect that is deserved, which says to me that the committee doesn't respect the accomplishment of winning the SoCon all that much. So was the SoCon actually holding us back?


4) UTC's seeding last year was poor because they just happened to win the tournament with a record worthy of a 16 seed. Another statistical bias there.

They won it didn't they? The Davidson team that earned a 10 seed wasn't able to win the tournament. Don't you think this was a factor in the committee's decision to award Davidson a 10 seed?


5) We've discussed those teams in the past on this board who've been below the 300 RPI level. The weighting of teams from the ASun has historically (since ETSU has been in the ASun) been MUCH heavier than for SoCon teams. That also is indisputable. Which of course hurts our SOS - a big factor in seeding. We've been in the predicament in past years of winning 4 or 5 ASun games in a row........and see our RPI actually drop.

I agree those teams hurt our SOS. The SoCon has it's share of bottom dwellers as well (UNCG, Wofford, Furman). The thing is, having those teams in our conference isn't necessarily what killed us, it was losing to some of those teams that hurt us so badly. That's our own fault, not a conference issue. Same as if we would have lost to Wofford in the SoCon. Also, the committee last year placed a heavy emphasis on overall strength of schedule. The mid-majors with high seeds last year were those who played strong out of conference schedules, more than their conference schedule. We've remedied that problem this year. Who knows what would have been if we'd have played this schedule last year? Again, not a conference issue.

6) You're the one who brought up championships. Your list is only basketball. I've already refuted your earlier (I think it was you - sorry if I'm mistaken) post about track. No way is a championship in track & field as prestigious in the ASun. Not to mention our "glory" years in cross-country were in the SoCon, and somewhat also in the OVC before that.

It is only basketball. There just isn't the data to compare the qualiy of most of the other sports. You pretty much have to be ranked top 25, which neither conference has too much of. I mentioned previously the regional rankings of cross country, where the ASun is slightly better. Two years ago our ASun conference men's soccer champ (JU) won a first round NCAA tourney game, while the conference championship loser (Campbell) finished 25th in the final poll. Baseball has traditionally been strong in both conferences. FGCU was ranked top 25 for part of last year in softball. Obviously our tennis programs strengthen the ASun, just as they did the SoCon. Golf is a decent sport in both conferences. There are accomplishments by both conferences that are decent, but neither is particularly noteworthy on a national level.

You're right, you did "refute" my statement. You must not have read my response where I corrected your error. Again, in all sports for the most part the difference in conferences is slight.


I could go on, but I'll leave it at that. There is some subjectivity in weighting these things. It's true that the average fan in most areas of the country doesn't know who's in the SoCon, Big South, or the ASun -- or even C-USA or the Atlantic 10 for that matter. But those who are on the seeding committee for the NCAA tournament *do* know these things. We are being hurt by this conference in basketball. Maybe not to a gigantic degree, but it's worth about 1.5 to 2 seeding places in the NCAA. Which is a big deal.
I mean, look at the close losses we've had. Except for the AZ game, and the Ga. Tech game (with 4 future NBA players, if I remember correctly - at least 3), it's been close loss after close loss. Although each game is it's own special case, if you have 1.5 to 2 higher seeding in those games, ETSU could well have won 1 or 2 more. And then who knows after that first game. As Davey has proven. As UTC has proven......

(01-18-2010 12:37 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  

(01-18-2010 11:01 AM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  

(01-18-2010 10:43 AM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  

(01-18-2010 10:38 AM)Buc Island Wrote:  

(01-16-2010 10:32 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  Pitt, the mistake I made was ever getting into a discussion with you. You always regress to attacking the person disagreeing with you as "stupid" whenever you don't like what is being said. You have made plenty of statements on this board that don't make a lot of sense. I mentioned above where you meshed my statement and GoBucsGo statement into one, yet I didn't call you stupid. For me, it's about what you write, not who you are or your intelligence level. You attack the person first and foremost. That's fine, that's your style.

Anyway, the gist of what I've said is if you look at the performance of our programs under Dave Mullins, the dept. has not been "crippled" as you claimed. You have given a plethora of reasons why the dept. has fallen away, none of which were based on team's performance. I stand by my claim.

You claimed that having football and being in a conference with football would increase the exposure for our dept. more than is possible without football. I stated, and maintain, that for mid-majors, winning basketball conference championships (no matter the conference) and getting to the NCAA tourney is the best way for national exposure. I stand by that as well. All the rest of this is off-topic from my two main points.

Pitt, you will in no way ever state that Mullins, Stanton, or ETSU athletics has done anything positive because of a personal vendetta because of an issue with credentials that matters only to you. I understand that and should have realized there would be no sense in actually discussing anything the athletic dept. does, because you will never look at it objectively.

I'm done with this, as I should have been a long time ago.

Please list the the positive things that Stanton/Mullins have accomplished for ETSU athletics.

Off hand, I'd say adding a new sport, the building of two new athletics facilities (the first since 1978) and the plethora of championships that have been won under Mullins' watch have all been positives. Increased scholarships for all sports plus bringing up the level of the women's sports to an equitable place have been positives as well.

And as others have correctly noted, the championships are less worthy due to lesser competition.

I think this is not very true, again this is all based on opinion. I did do some googling the other day to look at how respected the ASun vs. SoCon are nationally, as judged by the seeding of the basketball tourney champ in men's basketball. It's interesting.

ASun Champ SoCon Champ
2009 16 16
2008 15 10 (Davidson with Curry)
2007 15 13 (Ditto)
2006 15 15 (Ditto)
2005 15 15
2004 14 13 (ETSU)
2003 14 15 (ETSU)
2002 15 13
2001 11 16
2000 13 14
1999 14 8
1998 14 14
1997 12 14
1996 16 16
1995 16 15


You'll see that in the past 15 years the ASun champ has been a 16 seed three times, the SoCon four times. It's not the conference holding us back. It's our own performance. (Last year for instance we played a weak out of conference schedule and did not dominate our own conference) In looking at the numbers, the way to get a higher seed out of either conference is more about sustained winning than simply conference affiliation. Davidson went to 3 straight tourneys and started as a 16 the first year and were a 10 the third year. Look at our back to back years - 15 to 13 seed. The 8 seed in 1999 for the SoCon was CofC in their first year of membership after winning two consecutive ASun titles where they were a 12 and a 14 seed.

All I'm saying is the quality of competition argument is so slight, it's not worth noting because nationwide we're not viewed that much differently. It's all about winning conference championships in the conference you are in and the more often you do THAT the more respect you get as a mid-major.

There were about, what, four teams currently in the A-Sun when your seeding analogy begins?

Here's a more relevant example. In the last year of the SoCon, ETSU was 7-19 (10-19 if you count the victories against the non D-Is). The next year they were INSTANTLY competitive in the A-Sun and then were the regular season champs in two years.

You don't think that's at all due to an easier schedule? You have to have blinders on to not believe that.

Women's hoops never made the NCAAs before, they have made it twice since- the second time being in large part because the regular season champion was not eligible.

Perhaps Karen Kemp can tell us about meeting Roger Maris at the asterisk store.

You can say the same about every sport. I've researched the numbers- the RPI of every sport that both the A-Sun and SoCon play is higher for the SoCon with the exception of softball, which explains why with a new stadium the team still is mired in .500 status.

Incidently, if the No. 10 seeding of Davidson was an "anomaly" (and, it should be mentioned, this was the SECOND highest seeding out of the SoCon in the period Go defines), then what are the A-Sun's two highest seeds?

College of Charleston in 1997 (12) and Georgia State in 2001 (11)?

You have REALLY put your foot in your mouth on this one, Go.

That, and the fact you're defending a really patronizing person in David Mullins.

Go Wrote:

"Pitt, you will in no way ever state that Mullins, Stanton, or ETSU athletics has done anything positive"

This is a lie.

The first time I ever wrote about Mullins, in my award winning article on how he helped cover up Ed DeChellis' interview with Penn State, I praised him for having a great GPA on his tennis team.

You will actually read posts stating "David Mullins, I could kiss you!" for scheduling ETSU games head-to-head against the Arby's Classic on here.

I have also praised him for hiring Scott Calabrese as head men's soccer coach, and have also praised him for not making his coaches the scapegoat of his own failures.

**** I really don't have time to delve deeply into this. Please don't take my lack of detail as an agreement with you......
My comments below begin with asterisks........

(01-18-2010 01:33 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  

(01-18-2010 01:05 PM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  I think we all know there's not a *tremendous* amount of difference, and I won't take the time to analyze this in depth. But...........

1) ETSU's addition to the ASun has strengthened it; there is no doubt about that, thus there is that statistical bias introduced.

The ASun seeding has not really improved since we joined the conference, so I don't think you could say that our addition pushed the data upward.

**** Are you saying that ETSU's average RPI rating has been less than the overall RPI of the ASun? Surely you don't mean that......
ETSU's RPI since it has been in the league has raised the conference RPI of the ASun. Please do the math on that and get back to us.
I didn't say the seeding has improved. Hardly. We've raised the *average* strength of the conference overall because we've been above the strength of the average team. The standings and tournament championships attest to that.

2) The ASun has not had a team seeded above 14 since 2001.

The SoCon has had a couple teams seeded high. Davidson was an anomaly and a far better team than is usually representative of the SoCon.

**** Well, we've been over and over that. Was UTC's sweet 16 team also an anomaly? While I actually agree with you, Remember, Appy should also have gotten in one of those years. The SoCon has traditionally been *much* closer to being a two-bid league than has the ASun. In fact, I don't even remember the ASun and "two-bid league" ever being mentioned in the same breath - ever.......
My point still stands.

3) We, and the rest of the country, know that Davey's 10 seed last year was WAY too low, just like ours was for several of our NCAA appearances.

Hmmm, this sounds to me like you are saying that both ETSU's and Davidson's teams were better than their seeding. Let's see these are SoCon champs right? So what you're telling me is that the committee, who knows the quality of the conferences, did not deem the SoCon champs worthy of the seed that you say they truly deserved? Sounds to me like you're saying that winning the SoCon doesn't get the respect that is deserved, which says to me that the committee doesn't respect the accomplishment of winning the SoCon all that much. So was the SoCon actually holding us back?

**** I *am* saying that the committee knows who's in which conferences, which is what I originally wrote. We also both know that the committee has always favored seeding teams, even maybe 5th- or 6th-place teams from large conferences, over conferences such as the SoCon or the ASun. Without delving deeply, due to time constraints, into this argument, *neither* the SoCon nor the ASun, or shall we say the top-most teams therein, get the respect from the NCAA they deserve, come seeding time. So yes, in that respect, the SoCon actually held us back, too. Witness us winning it more than the statistical average would have predicted. I thought we all knew that, too. It did not, however, hold us back as much as the ASun.


4) UTC's seeding last year was poor because they just happened to win the tournament with a record worthy of a 16 seed. Another statistical bias there.

They won it didn't they? The Davidson team that earned a 10 seed wasn't able to win the tournament. Don't you think this was a factor in the committee's decision to award Davidson a 10 seed?

**** Davidson had a much less stellar supporting cast last year. I don't remember the details, and don't have time to look it up, but there was some 'issue' that night. (Maybe Wiggins from down the road in Greeneville was guarding him?) Anyway, yes, certainly it was a factor, as it should have been. But they still should have gotten in with 26 wins, or however many it was. Make them a 10 seed for 2009 instead of 2008, when they should have been like a 7 seed or so. My point was that had UTC had a better record, AND won the tournament, they would have had a 14 or 15 seed, AND Davey could have still gotten in, too. UTC winning the tournament last year was as much as an anomaly as Davey having Curry.


5) We've discussed those teams in the past on this board who've been below the 300 RPI level. The weighting of teams from the ASun has historically (since ETSU has been in the ASun) been MUCH heavier than for SoCon teams. That also is indisputable. Which of course hurts our SOS - a big factor in seeding. We've been in the predicament in past years of winning 4 or 5 ASun games in a row........and see our RPI actually drop.

I agree those teams hurt our SOS. The SoCon has it's share of bottom dwellers as well (UNCG, Wofford, Furman). The thing is, having those teams in our conference isn't necessarily what killed us, it was losing to some of those teams that hurt us so badly. That's our own fault, not a conference issue.

**** UNCG, Wofford, and Furman didn't have as low of RPIs as have had the bottom-dwellers in the ASun. But, that being said - sure, losing to those teams is even more of a problem than playing them. I think that goes without saying......

Same as if we would have lost to Wofford in the SoCon. Also, the committee last year placed a heavy emphasis on overall strength of schedule. The mid-majors with high seeds last year were those who played strong out of conference schedules, more than their conference schedule. We've remedied that problem this year. Who knows what would have been if we'd have played this schedule last year? Again, not a conference issue.

**** I basically agree with you there........as I think most would.


6) You're the one who brought up championships. Your list is only basketball. I've already refuted your earlier (I think it was you - sorry if I'm mistaken) post about track. No way is a championship in track & field as prestigious in the ASun. Not to mention our "glory" years in cross-country were in the SoCon, and somewhat also in the OVC before that.

It is only basketball. There just isn't the data to compare the qualiy of most of the other sports. You pretty much have to be ranked top 25, which neither conference has too much of. I mentioned previously the regional rankings of cross country, where the ASun is slightly better. Two years ago our ASun conference men's soccer champ (JU) won a first round NCAA tourney game, while the conference championship loser (Campbell) finished 25th in the final poll. Baseball has traditionally been strong in both conferences. FGCU was ranked top 25 for part of last year in softball. Obviously our tennis programs strengthen the ASun, just as they did the SoCon. Golf is a decent sport in both conferences. There are accomplishments by both conferences that are decent, but neither is particularly noteworthy on a national level.

**** Again, I don't have to time to delve deeply here, but quickly, tennis and golf have been about the same. In tennis, each conference has had about two other very-high-quality teams, with the others falling off considerably. Yaser Zaatini and Steve Brooks have done marvelous jobs. They would be successful wherever they coach. Most here don't realize how fortunate we are to have Zaatini here. The Fred Warren issue has been beat to death here, so I won't revisit that, except to say that how one performs/rates there is mostly about the regional tournaments one plays in. The conference really doesn't matter......

You're right, you did "refute" my statement. You must not have read my response where I corrected your error. Again, in all sports for the most part the difference in conferences is slight.

**** No, I did not. Perhaps I can get to that in the future....


**** I could go on, but I'll leave it at that. There is some subjectivity in weighting these things. It's true that the average fan in most areas of the country doesn't know who's in the SoCon, Big South, or the ASun -- or even C-USA or the Atlantic 10 for that matter. But those who are on the seeding committee for the NCAA tournament *do* know these things. We are being hurt by this conference in basketball. Maybe not to a gigantic degree, but it's worth about 1.5 to 2 seeding places in the NCAA. Which is a big deal.
I mean, look at the close losses we've had. Except for the AZ game, and the Ga. Tech game (with 4 future NBA players, if I remember correctly - at least 3), it's been close loss after close loss. Although each game is it's own special case, if you have 1.5 to 2 higher seeding in those games, ETSU could well have won 1 or 2 more. And then who knows after that first game. As Davey has proven. As UTC has proven......